1. Douglas Adams Memorial Lecture 2008

Comment #226214 by LDmiller on August 7, 2008 at 7:38 pm

I found the spam to meat ratio WAY too high on this. In spite of the woman's assets. Not enough Pinker.

2. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123839 by LDmiller on February 7, 2008 at 6:01 pm

76. Comment #123517 by Steve Zara on February 7, 2008 at 9:48 am

The idea that additional universes are created by the bazillions over time (past, present and future) requires a "universe generator" mechanism as a minimum.

No, it doesn't. It simply means that the same generation mechanism that made our universe was not unique.

What is the difference? A universe generator is at least as complex as the universes it/they generate. This is the same as Dawkins' argument against a creator god.

LDm: In particular, we do not know its velocity of propagation.

SZ: Yes, we do. It is c.

Gravity WAVES probably propagate at c. The "DC component" of gravity must propagate much faster to produce stable orbits.

See: http://www.metaresearch.org/cosmology/speed_of_gravity.asp
for a very good exposition on this.

SZ: This is news to me. My understanding is that general relativity (using Einstein's speed limit) does a superb job, so accurately predicting orbits that it explains the orbital decay of pulsar binaries.

The above URL also discusses this.

LM: So we --"in faith"-- use equations that assume an infinite propagation velocity for gravity.

SZ: We do? Such as?

Such as the equations in Physics 101. Time is not in the gravitational formulae.

See the above URL.

3. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #123248 by LDmiller on February 6, 2008 at 5:19 pm

From bunnyboiler:

to ld miller: Yes, they give lip service to the fact that the scientific method allows critical examination and is the only self correcting method of thought that we have (all of which is true), but the specific facts they use as if they are fixed in stone. In fact, much of what they hang their arguments on is on pretty shaky ground and in many cases out of date.

I think dawkins gives much more than just lip service to this and hitchens as a journalist has a deeper understanding of these subjects than what can be rationally expected of a layman and should be commended. It would be interesting to know if you could give an example of any of their respective arguments that dissolve when compared with more recent scientific data and a specific example of this "shaky ground" you speak of.

OK, that's easy.

1. Take the "multiverse" or "parallel universe" idea often quoted by these gentlemen. The idea that additional universes are created by the bazillions over time (past, present and future) requires a "universe generator" mechanism as a minimum. This leads to the question of what created the original universe generator? This is subject to exactly the same logical problems of infinite regression as a god creator.

2. The current "big bang" theory, in order to properly explain the present state of the universe, requires an uneven rate of expansion. Most damning in this respect is that in the initial instants it requires expansion at hyper-light speed from what would have to be the largest black hole ever.

3. Gravity (a favorite for arguing). We do not know much more about gravity than Newton did. In particular, we do not know its velocity of propagation. Anyone who has taken elementary astronomy knows that in order to accurately point a telescope you have to "lead" the position of the object, and thus the light does not appear to com from the same direction as the gravitational force. In order to compute stable orbits for planets in the solar system you have to assume (as Newton had to) that the force of gravity propagates infinitely fast-- the despised "action-at-a-distance" that Newton considered so unsatisfactory. Yet, if you use the Einstein speed limit (c, the speed of light in a vacuum) you end up with orbits that do not conserve angular momentum and spiral into the sun. We have no explanation for this. So we --"in faith"-- use equations that assume an infinite propagation velocity for gravity.

There are many other examples, and there is good evidence developing that the Hawking-Penrose-Copenhagen system is just plain wrong. There are books being prepared at this very moment that may well cause major upheavals in our view of physics and the cosmos, based on ultra precise measurements made with the GPS system.

4. Christopher Hitchens Debates Timothy Jackson

Comment #122755 by LDmiller on February 6, 2008 at 1:06 am

When I first started to look at these videos, I thought. "Oh, lawdy, Hitchens is taking on a Georgia cracker."

But as it went on, I found that this was one of Hitchens' better debates.

Yes, he made his points against Professor Jackson, but Jackson also had some good ones.

One of the best, I thought, was Jackson's argument that atheistic science is also at bottom a dogma that requires a good deal of what we would call "faith" thinking, and that the atheist community treats science as a privileged window in what Jackson called "the givens" (meaning reality), not to be questioned any more than the tenets of theism.

Interestingly enough, the people who place the most "faith" in the sciences are generally the least qualified to judge their veracity. Generally, if I have a problem with an argument put forth by the Big Four (Dawkins, Dennett, Harris, Hitchens) it is along these lines. They take things "as read" in sciences outside their expertise that are not at all settled fact.

Real physicists and cosmologists will certainly be the first to acknowledge that recent evidence has in large extent made tatters of their respective theoretical bases, yet these gentlemen (and many others) preach science as they know it as though it were nearly in the class of holy writ. Yes, they give lip service to the fact that the scientific method allows critical examination and is the only self correcting method of thought that we have (all of which is true), but the specific facts they use as if they are fixed in stone. In fact, much of what they hang their arguments on is on pretty shaky ground and in many cases out of date.

Professor Jackson did a pretty good job of pointing this out. He is clearly no ignoramus in the physical sciences.

This debate was held in a very civil manner, and rose far above the quality of discourse against attack dog/Ann Coulter D'Souza bait-and-switch tactics or McGrath's Great Condescension.

All in all, I thought it one of the better exchanges that Hitchens has had.

5. The Mind of the Market

Comment #119888 by LDmiller on February 1, 2008 at 1:09 am

LOUSY BOOK Schermer is a full-tilt Ayn Rand libertarian. He is an unswerving supporter of globalism and laissez-faire economics. His arguments for these things are totally one-sided, and his examples are patently ridiculous. He completely ignores the consequences of unfettered competition from 3rd world countries with slave wages. Well, HIS job is not up for grabs-- yet. To me, he neatly proves that economic Darwinism is as undesirable as social Darwinism. I read as much of it as I could stand. This is definitely at the top of my "re-gifting" list. It just kept getting worse.

6. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96027 by LDmiller on December 9, 2007 at 7:18 pm

It is remarkable isn't it? Surely common sense would decree that in order to argue with Dawkins effectively you should have read the book his ideas are based on. That veiled muppet from Turkey, admitted she had not read the book, but demanded that religion be free of criticism!

When you live in a hate-based culture the worst social sin is to "give offense". Haven't you noticed? She beat this to death-- in fact, that's about all she said. If you had to describe Islam in one word, it would be "offended".

The French have a very apt expression for it: "chien mechant" (sp?) = mad/bad-tempered dog.

7. Richard Dawkins on 'Have Your Say'

Comment #96024 by LDmiller on December 9, 2007 at 7:12 pm

One he missed though; when that Tory MP was on about "preserving traditional Christian holidays such as Christmas.." (or words to that effect), it should have been pointed out that the Christians stole them in the first place.

Even though I am in the US the "stealing Christmas" gambit marked that clown as a far right winger. There are several Fox News asses over here (Bill O'Reilly, John Gibson) that wheel out this tired screed every year. Gibson even wrote a book about it for the True Believer$.

I didn't know that the UK had been infected with Faux Noise. Maybe Rupert is the antichrist.

8. Secret Swami - About Sai Baba

Comment #95275 by LDmiller on December 7, 2007 at 8:36 pm

What always strikes me about these people is their G-U-L-L-I-B-I-L-I-T-Y!

That seems to be a universal characteristic, and the "flower child" or "new age" generation appears especially susceptible to it.

It is worldwide, and it is manifested by trading in the Enlightenment for Post-modernism. As Hitchens put it so well in his recent interview in Portugal, We Are In Reverse.

Scary!

(It's all the Beatles' fault!) ;^)

9. Banishing the Green-Eyed Monster

Comment #91842 by LDmiller on November 29, 2007 at 12:49 pm

Is RD trying to tell us something here???

10. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #85092 by LDmiller on November 5, 2007 at 12:39 am

Many children and mothers died of puerperal fever:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puerperal_fever

That is bacterial, with numerous causes.

But adults died of tuberculosis (there was an epidemic of that in the 30's and 40's) and other bacterial diseases-- malaria, etc.

I also recently recovered from a condition (ruptured appendix) that most certainly would have killed me without antibiotics and sterile surgical techniques (3 surgeries).

Americans have always had a bit more of a cleanliness thing, compared to other countries (Sweden may be an exception). No question about that. A trip to any public lavatory in Britain forcefully brings that home. Phew!

If you want to learn about Your Friends, the Micro-organisms, just take a course in microbiology. You will wash your hands much more often afterwards.

11. You big, fat pile of bacteria

Comment #84854 by LDmiller on November 4, 2007 at 12:57 am

Virtually all of the commenters here have forgotten that the life expectancy of people in the ancient world through the Middle Ages was on the order of 25 to 30 years. They had no knowledge of "germ theory" and most perished from bacterial infections.

In 1900 the average life expectancy in the US was about 45 years. Anything involving surgery or sepsis carried a very high death rate. For example, a ruptured appendix was often fatal.

Hygiene, vaccinations and antibiotics added 30 years to man's brief span.

Countries that do not have these things still have very short life spans.

Yet this crowd here crows about being a grotty bunch!

Slow learners...

12. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #61016 by LDmiller on August 3, 2007 at 10:30 am

socratzsche

LDmiller, I believe you're referring to artificial selection.

True, but the biology is the same.

Waxwings

Good points. I think that there could have been a number of generations in a few cases, as slavery went on for almost 300 years, and the lifetimes of slaves were much sorter than average (I once read that 7 years of work life was par). As to whether the traits bred for would die out, that would depend on whether they were recessive, etc. And plantations were totally isolated as far as the slaves were concerned.

The reason that there is so little on this is that it is so un-PC. Pity, as it might give scientists some idea of how fast evolution can proceed.

There are other examples (also very un-PC unless you happen to be a social worker) of isolated populations in the US. For example, in WW2 all of the caucasian men were in the military services. Henry Kaiser needed men to build ships, so he went into the South and recruited substantial numbers of black men for this. They settled in what can only be described as a ghetto in east Oakland, CA. With them came some unfortunate genes that rapidly spread in this population, and as a result there is a significant number of mentally retarded people there. Mustn't talk about it, of course, but the truth of the matter is obvious to any public administrator or social worker who has to deal with it. (As a youth I dated a social worker who worked in this problem area. What a downer!)

In many ways, PC and religion are similar, especially in the area of privileged treatment.

13. Interview with Richard Dawkins on 'The Selfish Gene'

Comment #60806 by LDmiller on August 2, 2007 at 10:15 pm

In the course of this program the topic of genetic engineering came up, and Dr Dawkins stated that just about every type of animal except humans had been genetically manipulated via the selection portion of Darwinian evolution. (This was in the context of a statement concerning that we are only now starting to manipulate the mutation part.)

Alas, Dr Dawkins is incorrect on this. Humans were in fact bred for certain characteristics: I refer to slaves in the antebellum South in the US.

Importation of slaves into the US was prohibited after 1808 (this is part of our Constitution), and even before that it had become economically very profitable to breed slaves on plantations in the deep South rather than import them. (The death and disease rates associated with the Atlantic crossing made it so.)

In the 50 years between the 1808 prohibitiion and the Civil War there were in fact human breeding farms, and the slaves were bred in precisely the same way that one would breed prize horses or cattle or dogs, etc. Furthermore, there were slave markets where they were bought, sold and traded.

This went on for long enough that there are still phenotypical differences between American and African blacks that far exceed what you would expect from the length of time that the American population was isolated from the African ones. (Eddie Murphy or Richard Pryor (I forget which) commented on in a stand-up routine; he had noticed the differences when he visited his ancestral home in Africa.)

The existence of these "human breeding farms" was famously novelized by a writer named Kyle Onstott in the late 1950's, in which he depicts a particular plantation over a number of generations. There were several senationalized novels (which were fiction, but based on historical data), and one of them was made into a movie: "Mandingo".

Oddly, this was done in an area of the United States where resistance to the ideas of evolution have been (and are now) the strongest.

14. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58317 by LDmiller on July 24, 2007 at 12:18 pm

the_assayer:

OK, so what is consciousness? Or, more particularly, what did Dennett say about it?

1. He dumped on any form of duality (Cartesian "theatre of the mind" was specifically mentioned), even as a useful concept for discussing the problem without any implication of a "soul". So He trashed the little daemon of voice in the head that talks to you and me 24 x 7 x 365. So there is no possibility of a 2nd person narrative, as I understand him.

2. He also dumped on any idea of first-person narrative (anecdotes) as being scientifically unsound, which it certainly is in any other endeavor.

3. He desires a 3rd-person account, which is indeed the standard scientific stance for evidence. Unfortunately, we do not yet have the necessary means to extract brain activity and deduce the thoughts going on. We either need something like a Vulcan mind-meld or some pretty serious advances in neorological monitoring machinery along the ideas of MRI. I don't see these coming soon (but eventually).

Meanwhile, we can all go home because for 3) right now there ain't no way to get there from here.

As to "zombics" or zombies, this sort of thing was hashed out many years ago in the Artificial Intelligence community (of which Dennett is a fan).

At that time the question was, "Is a machine that passes the Turing Test really thinking?"

There was a rather strong proof at the time (by Searle?) that it was possible to have a machine pass the Turing test without having a clue as to what it was doing. This is identical in concept (and, as near as I can see, in detail) to a "zombic" or zombie.

There is another lesson from Turing that is often missed: IT IS A NULL TEST.

That is, if a machine actually passes the Turing test, WE WILL NOT KNOW if it is "thinking". That's the definition of the test!

Perhaps biological consciousness is the same.

Meanwhile, new AI models are being developed that seem to show great promise and may crack the nut on consciousness.

I recommend "On Intelligence" by Jeff Hawkins and Sandra Blakeslee as a useful alternative to Dennett's approach. Hawkins (who invented the Palm Pilot) is trying to implement his ideas and is committing considerable cash and resources to it. Visit

http://www.numenta.com/

You computer geeks can download stuff to play with there. Your Very Own "Electronic Brain!"

15. Susan Blackmore interviews Dan Dennett

Comment #58304 by LDmiller on July 24, 2007 at 10:42 am

I found this interview to be practically content-free.

At the end of it I didn't know anything more than when I started, and this seems to be (for me) an ongoing problem with Dennett.

He is invariably windy as hell. Much noise, little said.

He seems to be unable to speak coherently. It is almost as though when he talks or writes he has so many parallel tasks and detours running in his head that he has a hard time choking out a cohesive narrative. It certainly seemed true in this interview. Maybe this is an occupational hazard: if you think about thinking for too long you end up in exitless loops. (After all, you are dealing with a "self-referential system", in computer parlance.)

At any rate , I found this and "Breaking the Spell" to be rather like a Mozart opera:

Full of words and music
And signifying nothing.

I agree that some of his TED lectures (on OTHER SUBJECTS, the ones he says he likes!) are very interesting and actually have some meat in them.

16. New Research Proves Single Origin Of Humans In Africa

Comment #57563 by LDmiller on July 19, 2007 at 10:34 pm

This smacks of the discredited system of measurements advocated by Alphonse Bertillon (though approved by Sherlock Holmes ) before the discovery of the uniqueness of fingerprints.

17. Angry atheists are hot authors

Comment #44474 by LDmiller on May 24, 2007 at 10:41 pm

Having read the 'debate' at

http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2007/mayweb-only/119-12.0.html

I must say that Wilson was the most worthy adversary to Hitchens that I have yet seen.

He caught Hitchens in error on several points of fact that Hitchens had made (and that Hitchens did not respond to), and he stayed "on point" in his arguments. He did not ramble through the usual religious laundry list.

Too bad that Wilson was on the wrong side of the table; he did a commendable job of debating.

In this case I think he fought Hitchens to a draw, as Hitchens was certainly not in top form.

18. The Cyclic Universe: A Talk With Neil Turok

Comment #43479 by LDmiller on May 21, 2007 at 4:05 pm

There are a number of alternatives to Hawking's theories and the so-called "conventional wisdom" ideas of cosmology (i.e., big bang, string theory, etc.).

Many of them are obviously crackpot ideas, but some are not.

As most scientists on this list know, the Gravity Probe B experiment is not coming forth with clear, unambiguous data See

http://einstein.stanford.edu/

One person who has an alternative view of the cosmos is Alexander Mayer. He was a visiting lecturer at Stanford a couple of years ago, and his studies of anomalies in the GPS system convinced him that there are errors in relativity, and (if I read his statements correctly) he forecasted that the Gravity Probe B experiment will show null or strange results.

Mayer posits a universe of multi-dimensional space and multi-dimensional time, and (again, if I read it correctly), 1) does not require a big bang at all, or 2) if there was one it may not be observable because of curvature of spacetime in the time dimensions (i.e., it is over our time "event horizon" where the "arrow of time" does not point in the same direction as locally).

If he is right, much of the current cosmology is wrong.

He wrote some papers while at Stanford (in order to get out in front of the completion of the Gravity Probe B experiment results, I believe), and he is now back at MIT.

His book on the subject is on-line and available free; he is using it as a "living document" to keep his ideas and calculations current with what seems to be a rapidly evolving situation. Once he is happy with the details of his work the book will be published in hard copy form.

His web site is

http://www.afmayer.net/

Personally, I am betting on him being right, in which case 60 years of cosmology --according to Mr Hawking's crowd-- has some pretty serious problems.

Give it a look.

19. Television evangelist Falwell dies at 73

Comment #41270 by LDmiller on May 15, 2007 at 6:39 pm

The ancients said you should always speak good of the dead.

Falwell is dead.

Good.

20. Does God Exist? The Nightline Face-Off (more info)

Comment #40720 by LDmiller on May 14, 2007 at 7:21 pm

Cameron and Comfort are the clowns who tried to show ID with the (domesticated) banana. Hilarious video on YouTube.

I found the Rational Response thing pretty childish in general.

Can't we have grown-ups in this?

21. Atheists go on the political offensive in God-fearing US

Comment #38081 by LDmiller on May 6, 2007 at 11:32 pm

Reg:

George Bush on atheism and patriotism

"Did George Bush really say that atheists should not be considered citizens?"

The following exchange took place at the Chicago airport between Robert I. Sherman of American Atheist Press and George Bush, on August 27 1987. Sherman is a fully accredited reporter, and was present by invitation as a member of the press corps. The Republican presidential nominee was there to announce federal disaster relief for Illinois. The discussion turned to the presidential primary:

RS:
"What will you do to win the votes of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"I guess I'm pretty weak in the atheist community. Faith in God is important to me."
RS:
"Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
GB:
"No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
RS:
"Do you support as a sound constitutional principle the separation of state and church?"
GB:
"Yes, I support the separation of church and state. I'm just not very high on atheists."

He was Vice President at the time. He refused to retract the statement after becoming President.

The Bushes are a very evil family for the last 3 generatiions, at least.

22. In Ducks, War of the Sexes Plays Out in the Evolution of Genitalia

Comment #37263 by LDmiller on May 3, 2007 at 11:15 pm

Born to this world was Corkscrew Dick,
Who came into the world with a spiral pr*ck.
Throughout the world he did hunt
For a well-bred girl with a spiral c*nt.
He found her, but he dropped dead--
The dear sweet girl had a left hand thread!

(UC Berkeley song from the sixties)

[blush]

23. Here Comes the Fourth Musketeer.

Comment #35553 by LDmiller on April 27, 2007 at 3:32 pm

I also got my copy a few days ago.

I find this book to be a great complement to The God Delusion because, as stated here many times, Hitchens comes at it from a very different direction from RD.

I found Danel Dennett to be far too windy for my taste. In "Breaking the Spell" he goes on and on with such teentsy baby steps it is hard to stay awake. His interviews and videos are similar.

Sam Harris is extremely lucid in his expositions (though I prefer to listen to him rather than read his work). However, he is grinding his axe in a very narrow sense compared to RD and Hitchens.

Hitchens is extremely well-educated (yes, a dictionary is sometimes handy), and he takes no prisoners. In the end, his arguments simply overwhelm you with common sense and close reasoning.

He writes exactly as he speaks (as does RD), so you are treated to "Hitchensisms" every so often, such as:

"There but for the grace of god go I = There by the grace of god goes someone else."

Plenty of bon mots for cocktail party chatter! To me, this is the most entertaining of the 4 books, and Hitchens did not sacrifice accuracy or close reasoning to make his points in an engaging manner.

(I forgive him his left wing days, which I did find extremely annoying.)

24. NEXT MONDAY: Bill O'Reilly interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #33151 by LDmiller on April 19, 2007 at 1:45 pm

This is a REALLY DUMB THING for Professor Dawkins to do, as he will find out.

O'Reilly is a pugnacious, bullying, shouting asshole who will not let anyone who disagrees with him get a word in edgewise. One exception was Geraldo Rivera, who is also a pugnacious, bullying, shouting asshole.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tLPuGuaZTx8

As a last resort he often has the microphone of his prey --er, guest-- cut off if he sees he is about to lose an argument.

Professor Dawkins, you have better things to do with your time-- just about anything, actually.

25. Growing Up in the Universe: 2-Disc DVD Set

Comment #32649 by LDmiller on April 17, 2007 at 10:06 pm

I got my copy yesterday (California, USA). By this afternoon I had watched all 300 minutes.

Great lectures.

I find it interesting that material targeted at kids in the UK end up being bought mostly by adults in the US.

The same thing happened with James Burke's "Connections" and "The Day The Universe Changed".

When Mr. Burke came to put in an appearance he was dumbounded that his programs intended for 8th-graders were mostly watched by adults in the US. He also was amazed that he was treated as some sort of Mr. Science, and kept insisting that he was a journalist.

Anyway, Great stuff! Dr Dawkins has put on a few miles since 1991-- haven't we all? (I am same age as RD.)

26. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23449 by LDmiller on February 28, 2007 at 7:47 pm

55. Comment #23432 by Toivo:

I responded to this at length, but the site software ate it, a fairly frequent occurrence from here.

Not worth retyping, but needless to say I do not agree with much of what you say.

27. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23372 by LDmiller on February 28, 2007 at 8:21 am

Excellent example, luthien (#32)

28. William Crawley meets Richard Dawkins

Comment #23324 by LDmiller on February 27, 2007 at 8:01 pm

I agree with what was said about Crawley posing some of the better questions to RD that I have heard, and giving the professor decent chance to respond within the time constraints of a half hour program.

One of the things that I find baffling about those who say "I live by Science" is that many (particularly non-scientists) do not seem to realize how much of the rock-bottom tenets of science are axioms, which are pretty equivalent to "dogma". I thought RD ducked on that, as he and the others (Harris, Dennett) always do. Science as a method offers a correction mechanism if applied honestly, but our present understanding isn't nearly complete enough to justify some of these gentlemen's statements without further discussion.

For example, the "multiverse" view hasn't a shred of evidence to support it, but if it is true, it might even give a place for a "designer god" to live outside of our universe, a frequent argument used by RD. A parallel universe could be much older and much more complex than ours. This kind of blows away much of RD's arguments.

RD has often said that if the universe were designed by a god "it would look much different", but he never elaborates on that. Sam Harris does the same thing on many occasions for many statements. "Because I say so" seems to be an adequate reason to both of these gentlemen.

One could understand that under pressure of time we have to accept such statements without much examination, but at some point it is time to start getting into finer detail on what seem to be unsubstantiated claims. Maybe another book opportunity, but I wish some of the interviewers would follow up more.

29. Noam Chomsky Interview on Faith

Comment #18449 by LDmiller on January 21, 2007 at 12:41 am

Chomsky is very famous, HappyPrimate.

The following from Wikipedia sums it up pretty well:

Chomsky is credited with the creation of the theory of generative grammar, considered to be one of the most significant contributions to the field of theoretical linguistics made in the 20th century. He also helped spark the cognitive revolution in psychology through his review of B.F. Skinner's Verbal Behavior, in which he challenged the behaviorist approach to the study of mind and language dominant in the 1950s. His naturalistic approach to the study of language has also affected the philosophy of language and mind (see Harman, Fodor). He is also credited with the establishment of the Chomsky–Schützenberger hierarchy, a classification of formal languages in terms of their generative power.

Beginning with his critique of the Vietnam War in the 1960s, Chomsky has become more widely known — especially internationally — for his media criticism and politics than for his linguistic theories.He is generally considered to be a key intellectual figure within the left wing of United States politics. According to the Arts and Humanities Citation Index in 1992, Chomsky was cited as a source more often than any other living scholar during the 1980-1992 time period, and was the eighth most cited scholar in any time period.

His work on Theory Of Language and efforts at an algorithm to generate any known language (which would be incredibly useful for translation, and I think most automatic translators on the Web use his rules) are his chief contribution to science.

His politics are not in favor in either the US or the UK for obvious reasons. However, he has a web site and is often quoted on liberal blogs. Google on Noam Chomsky and you will find an abundance of interesting things.

In his own field(s) he is rather like Professor Dawkins. It is surprising that you haven't encountered him.

30. Homophobia, not injustice, is what really fires the faiths

Comment #17115 by LDmiller on January 11, 2007 at 12:34 am

Does anyone know how the vote came out and could it be posted here?

31. Richard Dawkins' Report Card

Comment #17114 by LDmiller on January 11, 2007 at 12:32 am

I happen to be the same age as Professor Dawkins.

I don't know how it was in Rhodesia or England, but in the US every student's desk was fitted with an ink well.

The pens we used were black enameled handles fitted with what could be best described as a metal goose quill tip. There were no ball-point pens (called, I believe, a "Byro" in England). Producing a smudge-free penned paper was a non-trivial achievement.

I suppose such pens are still available in artists' supplies stores. Haven't seen one in a variety store for many years. I expect that they are still used by artists and calligraphers...

As to learning French and Latin, 7 or 8 is a great age for it. Children that age soak it up like a sponge. Same for studying a musical insrument. It is ridiculous to wait until age 15 or more to start studying a foreign language-- it's much harder.

Of course, the fact that learning by rote is so each for children that age bears out Professor Dawkins' concern about feeding religious phantasy to children this age. The Jesuits well knew what they were saying when they said, "Give me the child up till age 5 and I will answer for its religion".

32. Without God, Gall Is Permitted

Comment #16219 by LDmiller on January 5, 2007 at 3:50 pm

I get the feeling that most posters in these forums are quite young.

This is an interesting piece.

I don't know if the historical attitude toward atheists in Victorian England is accurate. A similar attitude certainly prevails in the US today, though.

With a couple of exceptions (such as Einstein's religiosity and maybe that of some others in the list) the article is factually pretty accurate. Dr. Dawkins, Daniel C. Dennett and Sam Harris actually said the things that Schulman says they did.

Anyone who has thoughtfully given up religion seems to have to go through something of a grieving process as is so well described by Julia Sweeney. Never mind that it is the same feeling you had when you found out there was no Santa Claus or Easter Bunny. There is a genuine sense of loss.

The question of atheism is certainly, in the end, a binary proposition-- there is a god, or there is not. In this sense, Dawkins, et al are correct; there is no common ground over which to argue.

However, the smart-assed attitude that permeates these forums does no good for the cause of rationality.

What is interesting is the cock-sure, very immaturely-expressed responses by most of the posters. They prove Schulman's point.

33. Pat Robertson: God told me of 'mass killing' in 2007

Comment #15925 by LDmiller on January 3, 2007 at 9:41 pm

"I have a relatively good track record," he said. "Sometimes I miss."

In May, Robertson said God told him that storms and possibly a tsunami were to crash into America's coastline in 2006.

Even though the U.S. was not hit with a tsunami, Robertson on Tuesday cited last spring's heavy rains and flooding in New England as partly fulfilling the prediction.

Robertson claims that his god-person is all-powerful; seems like he should bat 100%.

Whassa matter, Pat, poor reception? Put on your aluminum foil hat!

And remember, folks, THESE GUYS TALK TO BUSH ON A REGULAR BASIS!

34. No religion and an end to war: how thinkers see the future

Comment #15923 by LDmiller on January 3, 2007 at 9:34 pm

Wow!

I want some of what these guys are smoking!

Even if the West met their rosy predictions, Islam is headed the other way. Knowing my fundie relatives, I don't see the future like these guys. They are waiting/hoping for Armageddon!

Significantly, Sam Harris is not on this list of dewy-eyed optimists.

Regrettably.

35. America's Holy Warriors

Comment #15775 by LDmiller on January 2, 2007 at 9:36 pm

The infrastructure (as shown above, the Patriot Act, the various secret police acts, jettisoning of habeas corpus) is largely in place for a coup d'etat and a totalitarian regime.

I don't give this a zero possibility-- certainly much higher odds than the god hypothesis.

I DO think that it would in fact cause a civil war in the US. I know I would fight.

Someday countries in Europe and elsewhere will wake up to what has happened ALREADY in the US. Are you ready to face off against the American Menace?

Meanwhile, we are pinning our hopes on the new Congress...

36. Divided by a common language: Richard Dawkins clarifies his position

Comment #15593 by LDmiller on January 1, 2007 at 1:37 pm

A couple of comments on a couple of Mr Matzke's statements:

* Private property: In the U.S., public land is public and private property is private and usually absolutely forbidden to the public. But in many other countries (like New Zealand and probably most of the British commonwealth) private land is often open to the public by default for hiking etc. It is quite clear that the British position is more rational and civilized, but for whatever reason Americans prefer to guard their private land with shotguns as if their lives depended on keeping everyone else off.

The "whatever reason" is historical.

First, in the early days of the republic, there were heavy-handed governmental intrusions on rural makers of home-made whiskey (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whiskey_Rebellion).

Second, in the Wild West the argument was whether someone else could run their cattle on your range land, thereby making it useless for YOUR cattle. Have you ever seen a Western movie?

Notwithstanding the above, I contend that this whole statement is nonsense for England; maybe it is different in New Zealand.

* Alcohol: In the U.S., alcohol is absolutely forbidden until the late age of 21, at which point you are suddenly given a license to get schnokered at will without restriction, which many people do. In many European countries, alcohol is served to teenagers in moderate amounts, and a culture of moderation limits binge drinking.

This is absurd. In a recent visit to Cambridge it appeared that many students were majoring in binge drinking and projectile vomiting. The pubs actually had water hoses at the ready to sweep away the vomit, and tile floors and troughs to carry it to the sewer. The most gauche thing I saw was when one of these Future World Leaders hurled his guts all over and then grabbed his equally drunk "bird" and proceeded to slobber all over her face and practically pull her clothes off. The girl didn't seem to mind at all. Yechh. Nothing like a high-quality education!

Most cities in the U.S. have very strict laws against public drunkenness. There is a special "drunk tank" in most jails.

L D Miller

37. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15483 by LDmiller on December 31, 2006 at 6:24 pm

G Bile: The WHOLE WORLD seems to be drifting back into the Middle Ages. It is very disturbing to think of how fragile our progress since the Renaissance is. Don't be foolish enough to think it cannot happen to YOUR neighborhood. This is largely what prompted RD to do TGD-- a call to arms! Carl Sagan did it a decade or so ago in America ("The Demon-Haunted World").

Martha: seems to have been hitting the sauce on New Year's Eve and as the hours progress she seems to be indulging in the English national sport-- slagging America. (We're used to it.)

Having said that, what has happened in America should be a warning to those of you in other countries. You all have godders in the wings salivating furiously, either home-grown or immigrants.

The evangelicals spent nearly 100 years gaining control of the US. They started at the local level-- taking over school boards and municipal organizations in small towns and rural areas. Then they hit the state levels and, finally, in 1980, they hit the Big Time with Ronald, and the South flipped to Republican as a result of the Civil Rights laws.

Most of us were caught unaware. There were warnings-- from Playboy Magazine and other progressive, "godless" sources. We did not heed them.

But once they got in, it became very, very hard to get them out as they turned us into a fascist theocracy. The fact that our press and other media did nothing to help even increased the difficulty.

Those of you who are history buffs may remember that Mr Gibbon described essentially the same thing at length (to put it mildly) as The Fall of the Roman Empire. Same folks!

Hopefully, we are turning the corner. But it is like trying to put toothpaste back in the tube.

But the fact is, evangelicals --well-- are on a mission (evangelizing). They are a continuous pressure. They are at work in YOUR country.

Don't be smug, lest you find yourselves in the same boat that the US is in.

38. Not Yet The Majority But No Longer Silent

Comment #15428 by LDmiller on December 31, 2006 at 8:58 am

There are hundreds of comments to the original article.

Many of them make a poignant point with respect to dialog with the religious: there is no way to have polite discourse with them. Supernatural belief is their "raison d'etre". As with "High End Audio" nutters, it seems that the only effective way to deal with them is to treat them with utter ridicule.

There are also many suggestions that the antonym for "brights" is "dims".

In any case, I think that both Dr Dennett and Dr Dawkins are overly optimistic in thinking that this will go down easily.

In America, we have had the godders forever. Our mistake was LETTING THEM GET POLITICAL POWER. Let the rest of the rational world learn from this grave, and possibly lethal, mistake.

L D Miller

39. How Old is the Grand Canyon? Park Service Won't Say

Comment #15364 by LDmiller on December 30, 2006 at 6:28 pm

BRITS, AUSTRALIANS, EUROPEANS BEWARE

This should be an object lesson for what can happen in YOUR country if you allow the religiious zanies to get political power.

L. D. Miller
Ashamed in America

40. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14932 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 11:19 pm

@LDmiller
Thanks for your concession on the point at issue (though "versification" was perhaps one polemical step too far).

It was a joke. The "grin" lamp was on.

But you now say: "... [p]hysics (cosmology in particular) appears to be unraveling a bit."

Well, I think the astonishingly new discipline of cosmology (which only really got going with the discovery of microwave background radiation) is, like all children, growing in leaps and bounds - but it is still a child.

It also is showing signs of being a mis-reading of the tea leaves. It may in fact be out of date, Nobel prizes notwithstanding.

What is perhaps approaching a crisis of confidence is the commitment of particle physicists (at a real instituional level of funding and staffing) to the string/M theory research project.

But who is saying that science is a "signed, sealed and delivered case"? It was John Horgan in the End of Science (a not unappealling book) who declared that it was all over for major discovery. Break out the champagne and retire. He was hardly met by grateful acclamation from the science community.

I was commenting on the attitude expressed by many (non-science, I believe) commenters here about the water-tightness of the scientific case.

I actually watched the 15 hours of Beyond Belief videos in the past week (as my Xmas recreation) and self-satisfied gratification was not my impression. Indeed, scientists seem to be as happily fractious as ever.

True, but the split seemed to be between the "hard science" types and the others. Davies' lecture on the origin of the "laws of nature" (session #5) was met with MEGO (Mine Eyes Glaze Over) by the Philosophers-- notable lack of questions, let alone understanding, even allowing for the fact that these Deep Matters are incredibly hard to discuss and express.

And on the parenthetical points you identify as your real interest, all I can is: Yes! bring on more confounding evidence, please. There is nothing physicists fear more than being unable to test their many conflicting speculations with new, improved and inevitably more expensive tools.

The Gravity Probe B experiment took 50 years to develop the technology to make the measurements to the required degree of accuracy. Many physicists and engineers devoted their entire careers to it. It is a story worth reading:

http://einstein.stanford.edu

But none of this empowers for a second the supernaturalist agenda.

I entirely agree, but as Professor Dawkins has pointed out many times, the theists are nothing if not clever at appropriating scientific uncertainty and flux for their agenda.

Like Carl Sagan in his final weeks, I am intensely grateful that I have lived in a time where so much has been discovered about our universe, but this is a happiness shaded by the melancholy that I will not know the many things that will discovered after I am gone.

Yes, I found Carl Sagan's deathbed story related by Ann Druyan to be an incredibly moving thing. And in many respects I consider Richard Dawkins to be the philosophical heir to Carl Sagan. You could do worse.

41. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14929 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 10:44 pm

Point is, these results show that science is not the signed, sealed and delivered case that many commenters here seem to think. However, I attach no theological import to this. Indeed, I think that this is the tremendous strength of the scientific method: it gives us a method for self-correction as well as the only way we really know anything.

Nothing to disagree with there. Apologies for the theology detour:-)

Our messages are crossing--

I guess the reason for bringing up the scientific uncertainty at this time is that 2007 may well be a very "interesting" year for cosmology. Consider the reaction of the theists if announcements are made like

"Science shows universe to be infinitely old!"

"Excess red-shift effect shows universe much larger than previously thought."

"Time found to be multi-dimensional" (Hawking is now allowing for two dimensions last I saw; some want as many as 4.)

This is fertile ground for theists to exploit. If we were in an Age of Enlightenment it would be truly exciting (which it is for some of us), but since we have powerful forces trying to re-run the Middle Ages (did you read the Pope's Urbi et Orbi this year?), it could be some very rough sledding for Reason.

Loose reasoning as noted in Mr Rosenhouse's post does not help.

42. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14927 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 10:21 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen,

It's a public forum LD, try not to be so sensitive.

Apologies if I'm misrepresenting you, but you are responding to a post defending Dawkins approach, primarily to theology.

I was responding to the portions of the Rosenhouse post mischaracterizing the "laws of nature", including them being as "given". I did not address the theology dispute. Sorry if I strayed away from your personal priority.

Since no one actually knows what the origin of the universe is, in either the religious or scientific community, and at least in the scientific community no one claims to know, your criticism is somewhat vauge and superficial. What science is it he needs to improve on?

I think Mr Rosenhouse need to improve considerably on his notions of science. And that is what I commented on.

Try and firm it up next time .... eh?

Try and get some manners meanwhile.

43. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14924 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 9:52 pm

JohnC,

I was interested in LDMiller's criticism:

I found Professor Dawkins' argument of simple -> complex to be one of his weakest. While demonstrably correct in terms of biological evolution (e.g., the fossil record), it is by no means settled in either physics or cosmology.

This is a example of the something of which I myself have at times been guilty - namely, criticising what we think RD has said, rather than what he actually wrote. So here is what TGD actually says about this issue, from the beginning and the conclusion of the argument, respectively:

And although Darwinism may not be directly relevant to the inanimate world - cosmology, for example - it raises our consciousness in areas outside its original territory of biology (p114) ... We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying crane to the match the biological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an intelligent designer. (p158)

Point taken. There are other instances that did bother me, but I do not have the book annotated, chapterized and versified (g).

There are enough people out there shamelessly caricaturing TGD and its argument in an attempt to prop up their shopworn theologies. We should, supporters and opponents alike, resist the temptation on this website.

I repeat, I was not trying to promote any pet theology other than to point out the fact that physics (cosmology in particular) appears to be unraveling a bit.

As a result of Dark Matter and Dark Energy, Hawking is having to overhaul his life-work, and there are a number of new questions arising from our improving instrumentation.

(One local instance of particular interest to me, at least, is the anomalies discovered in timing variations in the GPSS system as well as the so far puzzling results from the Gravity Probe B program. These phenomena could go so far as to negate the Big Bang hypothesis as we know it. Specifically, the universe may be many times older than we currently think-- maybe even infinite.)

Point is, these results show that science is not the signed, sealed and delivered case that many commenters here seem to think. However, I attach no theological import to this. Indeed, I think that this is the tremendous strength of the scientific method: it gives us a method for self-correction as well as the only way we really know anything.

44. How the Great Atheist got polite society standing

Comment #14900 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 2:45 pm

As for Charles Simonyi having invented Excel, my knowledge of computing and its history tells me that Excel is a spreadsheet program which may have been developed by Microsoft but as software the invention of the spreadsheet was down to one Dan Bricklin with his VisiCalc. Besides, didn't Lotus 1-2-3 predate Excel?

From Silicon Valley:

You are correct on all points. Simonyi was the software project manager for Excel.

But, as you know, "History is written by the victors". Simonyi ended up with the bags of gold. Mitch Kapor (1-2-3) did less well, and Dan Bricklin ended up with the very short end of the stick.

And, of course, Excel was originally written for the Macintosh. Jerry Pournelle, the Byte Magazine chatterbox, used to go around saying that "Excel was in itself reason to buy a Macintosh."

WinWord came later, and it was first done for the PC. I was a beta tester for Word for Windows 1.0, along with James Gleick, the "Chaos" author and others. We had some very heated discussions with Simonyi's minions-- Microsoft knew little about typography in the early versions.

You probably know that there was a pre-Windows version of MS Word which was much more like a knockoff of WordStar.

45. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14891 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 12:36 pm

briancoughlanworldcitizen,

Thats the point though LD, theology is not an "area of expertise" as you so quaintly term it, but made up nonsense.

As regards the condescension, I'd recommend you brace yourself for more of the same. Anyone representing theology as an "area of expertise" in this kind of reason based forum is likely to be subjected to plenty of condescension:-)


You are completely off the rails as to what I said.

My posts had nothing whatever to do with theology, as "an area of expertise" or in any other way, other than in your head. I was not suggesting theology as an alternative in any way.

I was referring (as were Orr and Rosenouse) to the soundness of some of the TGD scientific arguments. I take it you are not a scientist.

Please stop reading your own notions into what I posted.

L D Miller

PS Thanks to Josh for changing my username!

46. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14889 by LDmiller on December 26, 2006 at 12:20 pm

Testing....

LDmiller, not IDmiller

47. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14880 by ldmiller on December 26, 2006 at 9:30 am

IDmiller, it really is that simple. Sure there may be some wispy, indefinable force that created the universe. It may even be concious, perhaps intelligent. However, it is almost certainly NOT any of the anthropomorphic, intervening, prayer answering, omnibenevolent, omnipotent cultural constructs that humans worship.

Hmm. I see that for the font-challenged, my username looks like it starts with ID. It is LDMiller. I'll have to get that changed.

I do not disagree with Dr Dawkins' conclusions, but I do think that when he gets away from his area of expertise his arguments get somewhat leaky.

If this seems like a leap to you, I'll be happy to explain it, although any modestly intelligent person who attempts to align main stream religious dogma and reality should see the point immediatley.

It is no leap for me, but thanks for the condescension! I rather doubt that you have anything to explain to me.

L D Miller

48. Orr on Dawkins

Comment #14821 by ldmiller on December 25, 2006 at 1:40 pm

Mr Rosenhouse's lack of knowledge about physics is showing.

Explaining the universe by concocting an entity that is even harder to explain is about as fruitful as saying the Earth rests on the back of a giant tortoise. It just raises more questions then it solves.

But that is exactly what happened in physics. Quantum mechanics turned out to be much more complex and counter-intuitive than the classical physics that preceded it. For all that, quantum mechanics appears to be staggeringly true, and this trend is continuing.

I found Professor Dawkins' argument of simple -> complex to be one of his weakest. While demonstrably correct in terms of biological evolution (e.g., the fossil record), it is by no means settled in either physics or cosmology.

Having done silly and sillier, let's move on to silliest. That's Orr's closing remark about Dawkins' own assumptions being question-begging. Why can the laws of nature be taken as given? Because they are given!

Here Mr Rosenhouse out-sillies Mr Orr AND Dr Dawkins.

There is considerable argument and attempts to research to find out "where the laws of nature came from". Dr Paul Davies gives a rather windy but interesting lecture on this in the "Beyond Belief" videos posted here. Interestingly, he posits a rather Darwinian processs whereby the various constants and relationships evolved WITHIN an expanding universe that had to begin so simple (and small) as to not support any "laws of nature" at all. Davies argues that the physical constants "evolved" in a cut-and-try, what-works-survives fashion in the very early instants of the Big Bang.

Rosenhouse has taken the main objection of a God existing apart from the universe and moved the same faulty argument to the physical laws of nature.

49. The Komodo Dragon's Tale

Comment #14424 by ldmiller on December 22, 2006 at 11:44 am

There seems to be a random usage of "selling" and "selfing" for the same thing.

"Selfing" makes more sense.

50. Lunch with the FT: Richard Dawkins

Comment #13613 by ldmiller on December 18, 2006 at 6:41 pm

Religion in America

One thing that Professor Dawkins and most of the European commenters here seem not to realize nor remember is that the country was ORIGINALLY SETTLED by religious nuts who LEFT EUROPE so that they could set up their own little heaven-on-earths-- over HERE. Later waves of religious immigrants settled the middle states (AKA the Heartland or the Red States).

Even a cursory glance at the list of the Colonies and immigration waves substantiates this.

1) So it should be nothing strange that the US has a strong religious bent (it is our heritage, for better or worse). It has always been thus.

2) Since the Colonies were populated by competing and mutually hostile religious groups, the founding fathers felt it necessary to scotch religious influence in the UNITED federation. Hence, explicit language to "separate church and state" at the national level to avoid religious infighting.

So why is this so hard for Europeans to understand???